LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RATTANI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1251 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A• v. ~-1 RATTAN! AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 7399 of 2008) DECEMBER 18, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.147 - Gratuitous passenger >~ - Claimants travelling in goods vehicles as members of marriage party - Liability of insurer to pay compensation - c Held: Not liable. Evidence: FIR made part of claim petition - Held: Although allegations made in FIR not admissible in evidence but since made part of claim petition, Court entitled to look into the same. D The deceased along with other injured persons were - travelling in a goods vehicle as members of a marriage "'" party, which met with an accident. An FIR was lodged against the driver of the vehicle for rash and negligent driving. E The claim petitions were filed by heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and other injured persons. The Tribunal passed an award of compensation, which was upheld by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant-insurance company F contended that the deceased and the injured were -~ members of a marriage party only and could not have travelled in a goods vehicle as representatives of the owner of the goods. Allowing the appeal, the court G ..,- HELD: 1.1. Ordinarily an allegation made in the first information would not be admissible in evidence per se } but as the allegation made in the first information report had been made a part of the claim petition, there is no 1251 H "' 1252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and consequently the appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same. However, in their depositions, the claimants raised a new plea, namely that the deceased and the other injured persons were travelling in the said truck as 8 representatives of the owner of the goods. [Paras 7 and 8] (1255-H; 1256-A-B] 1.2. Ordinarily this Court would not have entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence but as the High Court failed and/or neglected to do so, this Court has C undertaken the job of the High Court. The firsJ information report which was brought on record, clearly proceeded on the basis that the deceased and the other injured persons were members of the marriage party. Even if the submission of owner of truck that in the truck the goods offered by way of gift by the bride party wer~ D being transported is correct, the deceased and others could not have become the representatives of the owner of the goods. Even otherwise in view of the averrnents made in the claim petition and the first information report the said contention cannot be accepted. Furthermore in E their depositions the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants themselves stated that about 30 - 40 persons were traveling in the tempo truck. All 30 - 40 persons by no stretch of imagination could have been the representatives of the owners of goods, meaning F thereby, the articles of gift. [Paras 11 and 12] (1257-A-E] 1 ~3. The question as to whether burden of proof has }- been discharged by a party to the /is or not would depend ,;~ upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have G been brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lay would still be liable to ~ produce direct evidence to establish that the deceased and the injured passengers were gratuitous passengers. -\. H The First Information Report as such may or may not be NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RATTANI AND ORS. 1253 taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a A finding in regard to the question raised by the appellant, 4-1 but, when the First Information Report itself has been made a part of the claim petition, there cannot be any · doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked into for the said purpose. An admission made in the pleadings, B as is well-known, is admissible in evidence proprio vigore. The Tribunal as also the High Court committed a serious ~\ error in opining that the insurance company was liable. [Paras 13 and 14] [1257-E-H; 1258-A] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others c (2004) 2 sec 1, referred to. 2. The victims of the accidents were travelling in the. truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view of the matter, the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.